'Alright Now' how many versions?
icarusi
the car this week so I paid more attention than usual, and noticed the
first bend in the solo is slightly flat. Today they were on TOTP2 and
seemed to be miming, but this time the first bend seemed to be 'bang
on'. So was TOTP2 a tape made by Free specifically for TOTP or was the
R2 version not the 'main' version?
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Ian Spencer
"icarusi" <icar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ji4y7.3992$uU2.136477@wards...
Don't know specifically, but around that time there was a MU agreement that
all performances on TV had to be performed specifically for TV, even if
mimed. This meant that people had to trot down to a sound studio and
re-record to mime to. Some people were better at it than others - and of
course this meant that lots of session musicians were gainfully employed
when the Chini-Chap bands were around :) The usual tell tale sign of this
was orchestral backing, where budgetary limitations usually meant that
instead of half a dozen violins they'd scrape by with one or two... eek!
Alright Now was one of the earlier examples of the art of re-mastering for
CD. They re-did it about 10 years ago when they realised that the original
master tapes where very punchy compared to the rather muddy original mixed
master. It had a lot of publicity at the time. (For some reason I think Bob
Clearmountain had something to do with that remix).
Ian
Stewart Ward
<icar...@hotmail.com> writes
Both were completely different takes. And, yes there was the re-
released version about ten years ago which seemed to have a more 'dance'
drum track added... quite like it actually! I'm sure there would have
been other versions too though... live, etc.
--
Stewart Ward
Award-Session
Tel: +44 1256 477 222
Fax: +44 1256 817 687
Remove XX to reply (or to counsel me!)
Frank A Muller
> Originally, there were two versions. The 45 single and the album track.
> Both were completely different takes.
Well I had the 45 rpm single and the only difference I thought that there
was between the single and album versions was that the 45 was edited. I
think maybe 8 bars or so from the start of the guitar solo. I have never
done an A/B comparison so I can't be 100% certain.
> And, yes there was the re-released version about ten years ago which
seemed to have a more 'dance'
> drum track added... quite like it actually!
Never heard that one!
Frank A Muller
Dave P
"Frank A Muller" <famu...@pumptech.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bcbe6cb$0$25...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
J A Sims
In the spirit of the ethos that some detracting from the common ground is
good for inspiring at least semi-intellectual debate I hereby state the
following.
"I can't stick, and never could stick Alright Now by Free" 45 version
or album track. The whole thing reminds me of the weeks surrounding
Jimi's demise and Paul Rodgers used to get on me wick.
But I did like Mountain, Jimi, Johnny Winter/Rick Derringer and The
Dudley Moore Trio. :-))
No flames please.
Julian The Second
ps yes I know that Free were good players, especially so young.
--
Junior Mctavish Allstars
~~~
Ian Spencer
"Stewart Ward" <Ste...@radius-intl.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i1PR1DA$e0y7...@radius-intl.demon.co.uk...
> In article <Ji4y7.3992$uU2.136477@wards>, icarusi
> <icar...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Recalling a recent thread on 'Alright Now', I heard it on Radio 2 in
> >the car this week so I paid more attention than usual, and noticed the
> >first bend in the solo is slightly flat. Today they were on TOTP2 and
> >seemed to be miming, but this time the first bend seemed to be 'bang
> >on'. So was TOTP2 a tape made by Free specifically for TOTP or was the
> >R2 version not the 'main' version?
> >
> >Icarusi
> >--
> >remove the 00 to reply
> >
> >
> Originally, there were two versions. The 45 single and the album track.
> Both were completely different takes. And, yes there was the re-
> released version about ten years ago which seemed to have a more 'dance'
> drum track added... quite like it actually! I'm sure there would have
> been other versions too though... live, etc.
The re-release was supposedly the same mix, just better fidelity - plus a
bit of "that's how it was meant to be" artistic license in the mix I
suspect. There wasn't a new drum track added, IIRC. Just scarfed it up from
WinMX - fairly certain that it is the remix, very clear guitar, crisp
cymbal, distinct tone to the bass guitar even on 128 bit coding, but very
much the original song, just very punchy.
By contrast, just got two Curved Air CDs (Airconditioning and Second Album)
and I don't think I've ever heard such a bad CD pressing, varying sound
levels, major noticable compression artefacts, lack of top end, distortion.
Good mind to return them as unfit for purpose.
Ian
steve_cobham
The remix has various reverbs added in places IIRC - applied by Bob
Clearmountain who someone earlier mentioned. The Hits release that
this was on also has these new sounds on many other Free favourites
which take away a lot of the dryness of the originals - and, it has to
be said, a LOT of the charm. The effects are mainly applied to the
drums and also give a tad more ambience. They're quite nasty!
There is also another studio version of ARN which is an alternative
take. It can be found on the splendid Free box set - Songs Of
Yesterday.
IIRC there are two stereo versions of the original recording.
One has the solo dead centre in the stereo, whilst the other has pan
effects on the guitar.
Could the "still" version be the original mix whilst the pan version
was created for the reissue when ARN became a hit for the *second*
time?
Steve.
================================================
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm
E-mail: st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk
(Please remove obvious spam deterrent)
Interested in Zappa? Guitar? Beer?
Save money by setting up your own guitar!
How about trading Zappa and Danny Gatton tapes?
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/
Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare.
================================================
Mike Whitaker
> Clearmountain who someone earlier mentioned. The Hits release that
> this was on also has these new sounds on many other Free favourites
> which take away a lot of the dryness of the originals - and, it has to
> be said, a LOT of the charm. The effects are mainly applied to the
> drums and also give a tad more ambience. They're quite nasty!
Did the remix project also include Wishing Well?
I remember a fairly recent (past few years) version of that getting a fair
amount of airplay, and wondering whose version it was till I finally
caught enough DJ's billing it as Free to be convinced it WAS. Except that,
to my ears, it sounded nothing like the version I learnt the song off in
the early 80s.
--
Mike Whitaker: mi...@altrion.org
Guitar stash: http://www.altrion.org/guitars.html
UKMG Homepage: http://www.ukmg.org.uk/
steve_cobham
wrote:
>> The remix has various reverbs added in places IIRC - applied by Bob
>> Clearmountain who someone earlier mentioned. The Hits release that
>> this was on also has these new sounds on many other Free favourites
>> which take away a lot of the dryness of the originals - and, it has to
>> be said, a LOT of the charm. The effects are mainly applied to the
>> drums and also give a tad more ambience. They're quite nasty!
>
>Did the remix project also include Wishing Well?
Yes.
Track listing:
The Best of Free: All Right Now.
WW
ARN
A little bit of love
Come together in the morning
Stealer
Sail on
Mr Big
My brother Jake
the hunter
Be my friend
Travellin in style
Fire & water
Travelling man
Don't say you love me
>
>I remember a fairly recent (past few years) version of that getting a fair
>amount of airplay, and wondering whose version it was till I finally
>caught enough DJ's billing it as Free to be convinced it WAS. Except that,
>to my ears, it sounded nothing like the version I learnt the song off in
>the early 80s.
To quote the Troggs' tape, the whole issue is covered with "fuckin'
fairy dust"........
It sucks the oomph right out of the sound and coats what's left with a
very pronounced "gloss" - something Free could never normally be
accused of having.
I don't think that any new instruments have been added or new
recordings made, but there's a lot of extra reverb, delay and EQ
applied to the tracks.
Sacrilege - although if it meant that Rodgers, Kirke, Fraser and
Kossof's estate got some extra royalties from the venture, maybe not
all bad.
Then again, I don't know how good their deal was - but seeing as how
Andy Fraser manages to survive without much output, possibly not too
bad.
Ian Spencer
<Steve Cobham> wrote in message
news:goiostgarqhcne74k...@4ax.com...
Well, for me the original didn't have the charm, very flat, poor fidelity.
Having lived through the Hi-Fi Answers era of fidelity, I am not a Hi-Fi
purist, but Alright Now was always one of those songs that for me suffered
from poor mastering. It was frustrating that we know from the Beatles that
the technology existed from very early on to do good sound quality -
surprising how many named groups screwed it up.
To name two, Beach Boys quality was generally appalling, and also Simon &
Garfunkle, Bridge Over Troubled Water - those violins distorting on the
title track among other sins...
Ian
Paul Simpson
news:zh3z7.1933$qq3.1...@news1.cableinet.net...
> Well, for me the original didn't have the charm, very flat, poor fidelity.
> Having lived through the Hi-Fi Answers era of fidelity, I am not a Hi-Fi
> purist, but Alright Now was always one of those songs that for me suffered
> from poor mastering. It was frustrating that we know from the Beatles that
> the technology existed from very early on to do good sound quality -
> surprising how many named groups screwed it up.
Yeah, I know. thank the lord above for George Martin and all the fine
engineers at Abbey Road studios.
>
> To name two, Beach Boys quality was generally appalling, and also Simon &
> Garfunkle, Bridge Over Troubled Water - those violins distorting on the
> title track among other sins...
That's because (believe it or not) them there violins were done on synths.
Or at least one overdubbed synth.
--
All the best,
Paul.
www.psimpson.net - Coming soon!
Frank A Muller
<Snip go the shears boys snip snip snip>
> IIRC there are two stereo versions of the original recording.
>
> One has the solo dead centre in the stereo, whilst the other has pan
> effects on the guitar.
> Could the "still" version be the original mix whilst the pan version
> was created for the reissue when ARN became a hit for the *second*
> time?
The 45 had the pan effects on the guitar. (Hope my memory isn't playing
tricks on me again.) Sadly I no longer have the record so I can't play it to
verify... I just love the drumming on that song. The bass-drum pattern is
just so good. I pinch it many times when I'm composing MIDI backing
tracks...
Frank A Muller
Frank A Muller
< Except that, to my ears, (Wishing Well) sounded nothing
> like the version I learnt the song off in the early 80s.
Yes, I had that single too but it was from earlier than that. I think
pre-1975. As I recall it was very muddy sounding.
"You've always been a good friend of mine
But you're always saying 'Farewell'
And the only time that you're satisfied
Is with your feet in the Wishing Well"
Great song.
Frank A Muller
Frank A Muller
> In the spirit of the ethos that some detracting from the common ground is
> good for inspiring at least semi-intellectual debate I hereby state the
> following.
That's not a problem JA. In this free-democratic forum of UKMG you have
every right to be wrong:-)
Frank A Muller (who's exercised THAT particular right more than a few
times!)
ps Wonder if Ric Booth with use that?
Mike Whitaker
> Mike Whitaker wrote
> < Except that, to my ears, (Wishing Well) sounded nothing
>> like the version I learnt the song off in the early 80s.
>
> Yes, I had that single too but it was from earlier than that. I think
> pre-1975. As I recall it was very muddy sounding.
I know - but I didn't run into it until the band I was in at Uni decided
to cover it.
Ian Spencer
I think just about every drum machine in the land has it as a standard
pattern :)
Ian
Steve Dix
<JustForN...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>To name two, Beach Boys quality was generally appalling,
Yes, but that was basically because of the way Brian Wilson pushed the
sound technology available to him. I recall reading that the backing
tracks for pet sounds were done on 4-track, which was then transferred
to two tracks on an 8-track, where all the vocal dubbing was done. A
bit arse-about-face, to be honest, but you have to remember that there
was no real method of synchronising multitrack tapes at the time, no
Dolby noise reduction and that he was practically making it up as he
went along.
Earlier recordings were made with 4-track and they used to dub down 3
tracks onto 1 track, then re-use the extra 3. The problem being that
on copying from one track to another, noise increases as a square
(AFAIK) - THEN you have to take into account that the noise from 3
tracks is going to be 9 times as loud.
Finally, the average sound reproduction market that they were aiming
at didn't have anything like the sort of fidelity that exists today.
BW admitted that he used the lack of clarity to cover things up and
make them "gel" together - probably why he used 4-track for the
backing.
=====================================================
http://www.mp3.com/simpletons
http://www.snorty.net/
http://www.stevedix.de/
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/2706
Steve Dix
<p_r_simpso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's because (believe it or not) them there violins were done on synths.
>Or at least one overdubbed synth.
A Mellotron?
Ian Spencer
"Steve Dix" <st...@stevedix.de> wrote in message
news:3sfqst8fsp5eb80c7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:24:42 +0100, "Paul Simpson"
> <p_r_simpso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >That's because (believe it or not) them there violins were done on
synths.
> >Or at least one overdubbed synth.
>
> A Mellotron?
>
A Moog I believe - the Moog first publically appeared on Bookends. As a
matter of course synths were overdubbed - polyphonic synths didn't really
come out until the mid-to late 70's. Stuff like Tomita Snowflakes Are
Dancing was painfully put together one note at a time - if he'd just hung on
a couple of years he could have used an Oberheim that Zawinul used to
devastating effect in the hey day of Weather Report.
I'm not 100% convinced the strings at the end aren't strings - they did have
string players on the album, but either way it still sounds shite ;)
Mellotrons are distinctively different. Basically, Moody Blues and King
Crimson being the definitive users of the Mellotron - lovely unique sound,
what a synthesiser should be rather than a means of reproducing an existing
sound.
Ian
.clive.murray. (at work)
news:GLAMnB.Ly...@bath.ac.uk...
> "I can't stick, and never could stick Alright Now by Free" 45 version
> or album track. The whole thing reminds me of the weeks surrounding
> Jimi's demise and Paul Rodgers used to get on me wick.
that's interesting. I personally just don't like it very much. never did.
I'll happily play it in a band that's playing a retro set, like I did on
millennium eve, but I would never put it on my stereo. it may be a classic
and all that, and I respect it, but it's not my thing at all really.
--c.
--
* cliveatclivemurraydotcom | [don't use my hotmail address]
* - music | http://www.clivemurray.com/
* - website | http://earthman.org/
* "it's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine" -- rem
Steve Dix
<earth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"J A Sims" <hss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:GLAMnB.Ly...@bath.ac.uk...
>
>> "I can't stick, and never could stick Alright Now by Free" 45 version
>> or album track. The whole thing reminds me of the weeks surrounding
>> Jimi's demise and Paul Rodgers used to get on me wick.
>
>that's interesting. I personally just don't like it very much. never did.
>
>I'll happily play it in a band that's playing a retro set, like I did on
>millennium eve, but I would never put it on my stereo. it may be a classic
>and all that, and I respect it, but it's not my thing at all really.
It's never really done it for me either.
James Screaton
> <p_r_simpso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >That's because (believe it or not) them there violins were done on
synths.
> >Or at least one overdubbed synth.
>
> A Mellotron?
sounds more reasonable - I think it would be a bit early for anything other
than the monster moogs, or the type of synths that Floyd used for sound
effect type noise.
Cheers
James
Steve Dix
The reason I thought it was a Mellotron was the comment about
distortion - Mellotrons tended to distort fairly easily, and that was
what gave them their signature sound.
I think it's a bit unlikely that the moog was used to synthesize the
strings - remember that at the time, the state of the art in string
synthesis was Wendy/Walter Carlos "Switched on Bach" - or the
soundtrack to Clockwork Orange.
steve_cobham
<earth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"J A Sims" <hss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:GLAMnB.Ly...@bath.ac.uk...
>
>> "I can't stick, and never could stick Alright Now by Free" 45 version
>> or album track. The whole thing reminds me of the weeks surrounding
>> Jimi's demise and Paul Rodgers used to get on me wick.
>
>that's interesting. I personally just don't like it very much. never did.
>
>I'll happily play it in a band that's playing a retro set, like I did on
>millennium eve, but I would never put it on my stereo. it may be a classic
>and all that, and I respect it, but it's not my thing at all really.
Free made some far better recordings than ARN.
The Stealer and I'll Be Creeping being two particular favourites of
mine.
At times they were the best UK *blues act around to my mind.
* Although they might have contributed nothing new melodically to the
form, they altered the form itself. Something few similar acts have
done since, with maybe the exception of Zeppelin, although Free were
quicker in ditching the regular blues form than Page et al.
steve_cobham
<JustForN...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>"Steve Dix" <st...@stevedix.de> wrote in message
>news:3sfqst8fsp5eb80c7...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:24:42 +0100, "Paul Simpson"
>> <p_r_simpso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >That's because (believe it or not) them there violins were done on
>synths.
>> >Or at least one overdubbed synth.
>>
>> A Mellotron?
>>
>
>A Moog I believe - the Moog first publically appeared on Bookends.
As far as S&G were concerned, or generally speaking?
Steve Dix
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:13:53 GMT, "Ian Spencer"
><JustForN...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Dix" <st...@stevedix.de> wrote in message
>>news:3sfqst8fsp5eb80c7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:24:42 +0100, "Paul Simpson"
>>> <p_r_simpso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >That's because (believe it or not) them there violins were done on
>>synths.
>>> >Or at least one overdubbed synth.
>>>
>>> A Mellotron?
>>>
>>
>>A Moog I believe - the Moog first publically appeared on Bookends.
>
>As far as S&G were concerned, or generally speaking?
>
I thought the first recorded use of a moog was "Daily Nightly" on "The
Birds, The Bees and The Monkees".
steve_cobham
wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:22:09 +0100, Steve Cobham wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:13:53 GMT, "Ian Spencer"
>><JustForN...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Steve Dix" <st...@stevedix.de> wrote in message
>>>news:3sfqst8fsp5eb80c7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:24:42 +0100, "Paul Simpson"
>>>> <p_r_simpso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >That's because (believe it or not) them there violins were done on
>>>synths.
>>>> >Or at least one overdubbed synth.
>>>>
>>>> A Mellotron?
>>>>
>>>
>>>A Moog I believe - the Moog first publically appeared on Bookends.
>>
>>As far as S&G were concerned, or generally speaking?
>>
>
>
>I thought the first recorded use of a moog was "Daily Nightly" on "The
>Birds, The Bees and The Monkees".
I thought it was the United States of America on "I Wouldn't Leave My
Little Wooden Wife For You, Sugar" - usually first encountered on the
CBS sampler "The Rock Machine Turns You On".
Ross Edwards
>
>"J A Sims" <hss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:GLAMnB.Ly...@bath.ac.uk...
>
>> "I can't stick, and never could stick Alright Now by Free" 45 version
>> or album track. The whole thing reminds me of the weeks surrounding
>> Jimi's demise and Paul Rodgers used to get on me wick.
>
>that's interesting. I personally just don't like it very much. never did.
>
>I'll happily play it in a band that's playing a retro set, like I did on
>millennium eve, but I would never put it on my stereo. it may be a classic
>and all that, and I respect it, but it's not my thing at all really.
<alt.guitar> All Right Now rocks! </alt.guitar>
Seriously, I think it's a great song - only problem seems to be that every
corporate joe wants to use it as part of their advertising campaign...
consequently people get sick of it (I still remember being asked to play "that
song from the chewing gum ad").
These days the only time I hear it is when I play it or on re-runs of old
Wrigley's commercials... still - it's a good one for practising your vibrato!
Ross.
--
http://rossedwards.net
http://rawsilk.moonfruit.com
Email: ross[at]rossedwards[dot]net
Work: ross[dot]edwards[at]1webmail[dot]net
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.
steve_cobham
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:21:03 GMT, "Ian Spencer"
><JustForN...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>To name two, Beach Boys quality was generally appalling,
>
>Yes, but that was basically because of the way Brian Wilson pushed the
>sound technology available to him. I recall reading that the backing
>tracks for pet sounds were done on 4-track, which was then transferred
>to two tracks on an 8-track, where all the vocal dubbing was done. A
>bit arse-about-face, to be honest, but you have to remember that there
>was no real method of synchronising multitrack tapes at the time, no
>Dolby noise reduction and that he was practically making it up as he
>went along.
According to one of the booklets in my Pet Sounds box set, the backing
tracks were recorded onto three tracks of a 4-track machine - he may
even have used a *3*-track! - allowing Brian some control of the
overall balance and then dubbed onto *one* track of an 8-track
machine, leaving seven tracks for vocals.
A couple of tracks on PS were solely recorded on the 8-track, although
this didn't become his regular practice until he started work on the
Smile album.
Ah.......the Smile album..........
I don't think that there's been a better album that was never
released.
I've just got hold of yet another version of it and it still amazes me
how Brian could have shelved the project.
Roll on the "Smile" box set that is often rumoured to be ready for
release.
Brian Wilson.......a genius.
steve_cobham
Edwards<ros...@SPAMrossedwards.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:46:11 +0100, at work\ wrote:
>>
>>"J A Sims" <hss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>news:GLAMnB.Ly...@bath.ac.uk...
>>
>>> "I can't stick, and never could stick Alright Now by Free" 45 version
>>> or album track. The whole thing reminds me of the weeks surrounding
>>> Jimi's demise and Paul Rodgers used to get on me wick.
>>
>>that's interesting. I personally just don't like it very much. never did.
>>
>>I'll happily play it in a band that's playing a retro set, like I did on
>>millennium eve, but I would never put it on my stereo. it may be a classic
>>and all that, and I respect it, but it's not my thing at all really.
>
><alt.guitar> All Right Now rocks! </alt.guitar>
>
>Seriously, I think it's a great song - only problem seems to be that every
>corporate joe wants to use it as part of their advertising campaign...
>consequently people get sick of it (I still remember being asked to play "that
>song from the chewing gum ad").
>
>These days the only time I hear it is when I play it or on re-runs of old
>Wrigley's commercials... still - it's a good one for practising your vibrato!
........whilst chewing gum?
Steve Dix
>
>According to one of the booklets in my Pet Sounds box set, the backing
>tracks were recorded onto three tracks of a 4-track machine - he may
>even have used a *3*-track! - allowing Brian some control of the
>overall balance and then dubbed onto *one* track of an 8-track
>machine, leaving seven tracks for vocals.
>
>A couple of tracks on PS were solely recorded on the 8-track, although
>this didn't become his regular practice until he started work on the
>Smile album.
>
Which explains my confusion. I presumed he'd dubbed down to 2 tracks
on the 8-track to retain the stereo submix. I was probably listening
to something done completely on 8-track.
steve_cobham
wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:05:57 +0100, Steve Cobham wrote:
>
>
>>
>>According to one of the booklets in my Pet Sounds box set, the backing
>>tracks were recorded onto three tracks of a 4-track machine - he may
>>even have used a *3*-track! - allowing Brian some control of the
>>overall balance and then dubbed onto *one* track of an 8-track
>>machine, leaving seven tracks for vocals.
>>
>>A couple of tracks on PS were solely recorded on the 8-track, although
>>this didn't become his regular practice until he started work on the
>>Smile album.
>>
>
>
>Which explains my confusion. I presumed he'd dubbed down to 2 tracks
>on the 8-track to retain the stereo submix. I was probably listening
>to something done completely on 8-track.
Pet Sounds had no stereo backing tracks - if that's what you mean.
Everything was "locked" in mono as the booklet puts it.
The vocals were then recorded on the remaining tracks and then mixed
to mono, although I don't know if this was all done in the final mix
or if one track was kept spare for the "bounce".
The former, I presume, although Brian certainly had his own very
idiosyncratic way of working.
To go back to an earlier point you made about how his music was going
to be played when it got out onto vinyl, the mixes were all in mono to
ensure - so Brian reasoned - that the variability in people's stereo
equipment didn't alter his mix.
icarusi
news:zh3z7.1933$qq3.1...@news1.cableinet.net...
> Well, for me the original didn't have the charm, very flat, poor
fidelity.
> Having lived through the Hi-Fi Answers era of fidelity, I am not a
Hi-Fi
> purist, but Alright Now was always one of those songs that for me
suffered
> from poor mastering. It was frustrating that we know from the
Beatles that
> the technology existed from very early on to do good sound quality -
> surprising how many named groups screwed it up.
The 'wet cardboard' drum sound hasn't worn well over time either.
icarusi
> Mellotrons are distinctively different. Basically, Moody Blues and
King
> Crimson being the definitive users of the Mellotron - lovely unique
sound,
> what a synthesiser should be rather than a means of reproducing an
existing
> sound.
Not forgetting Barclay James Harvest, for the Manchester, nay
Saddleworth section of the NG?
Icarusi
icarusi
> I thought it was the United States of America on "I Wouldn't Leave
My
> Little Wooden Wife For You, Sugar" - usually first encountered on
the
> CBS sampler "The Rock Machine Turns You On".
That was a 'ring modulator'. Could have been a Bob Moog bit of kit,
but not strictly speaking a sysnthesiser as we know it Jim, having no
signal generators, more a signal modifier. Incidentally I have the USA
album, found in a s/h shop. I think it's worth a few bob now?
icarusi
> I think it's a bit unlikely that the moog was used to synthesize the
> strings - remember that at the time, the state of the art in string
> synthesis was Wendy/Walter Carlos "Switched on Bach" - or the
> soundtrack to Clockwork Orange.
Prior to poly synths and post mellotron, there were 'string machines'
specifically to synthesize a string sound but cheaper, lighter, less
complex and more reliable than the Mellotron. 'Solina' was one. IIRC
they were combinations of sawtooth and square wave generated
individually for 12 tones, and the keys gated and filtered the
harmonics to cover the range of the keyboard?
steve_cobham
wrote:
Really?
I haven't heard it for ages - I don't think I have that album anymore
- TRMTYO.
Might have a tape dub somewhere.
steve_cobham
wrote:
And am I the only person who laughs out loud when I hear syndrums?
Love don't live here anymore........
Doo doo do do do doo.........
Hehe
Trev Ridney
<Steve Cobham> wrote
> And am I the only person who laughs out loud when I hear syndrums?
>
> Love don't live here anymore........
> Doo doo do do do doo.........
No. Who can forget the sheer artistry of that baroque classic er, ahem ....
'*Pooo*.... You can ring mah beeeell, *pooo*, ring mah beell, ding dong ding
beeeellll, ring it *pooo*, etc...'
Don't yuh jus' lurve disco?
Trev :)
NP: The Stumble; Sir Gary Of The Moore
Steve Dix
wrote:
><Steve Cobham> wrote in message
Ring modulators are basically difference mixers - a normal mixer takes
two inputs and sums them. Ring modulators take two inputs and find
the difference. Every tape recorder uses ring modulation circuitry to
remove the ultrasonic bias signal, AFAIK.
They became very famous in the 60's due to them being used by the
radiophonic workshop to produce the voice of the Daleks in Dr. Who.
Basically take one Ring Modulator, connect up a square wave from a
signal generator, and put the actor's voice into the other input, and
you get a harsh, metallic, grating tone.
Apparently Dik Mik of Hawkwind used to use one with a flanger to get
some really strange sounds.
..And if anyone knows where I can get hold of one, I'd love to have
it. Doesn't the GFX707 have one?
Steve Dix
wrote:
>
>The 'wet cardboard' drum sound hasn't worn well over time either.
>
As opposed to the Dry cardboard drum sound on The Flying Lizards
version of "Money" ? (Apparently the drums really were cardboard
boxes)
;->
J A Sims
Always preferred Johnny Winter's vibrato me sen.
Julian the Second
--
Junior Mctavish Allstars
~~~
icarusi
> Ring modulators are basically difference mixers - a normal mixer
takes
> two inputs and sums them. Ring modulators take two inputs and find
> the difference. Every tape recorder uses ring modulation circuitry
to
> remove the ultrasonic bias signal, AFAIK.
I don't know about the original 'ring mods', but the current 'musical
use' ones are amplitude modulators of the original signal by a
frequency generator. In theory you could modulate the original signal
by any other signal, but its usually just a simple waveform, sine,
sawtooth or square with a frequency range control, for your standard
Dalek.
AFAIK if you set up a twin channel comp/limiter for the DJ auto
'ducking', through the side chains, you can modulate the audio channel
through the DJ channel with any signal you choose. The attack,
release, and hold need to be on the shortest settings, and only the
audio channel needs to be heard.
icarusi
> >The 'wet cardboard' drum sound hasn't worn well over time either.
> >
>
> As opposed to the Dry cardboard drum sound on The Flying Lizards
> version of "Money" ? (Apparently the drums really were cardboard
> boxes)
Supposedly the first was 'With a Little Help from my Friends' by Joe
Cocker? It's an OK sound on some stuff, but it got done to death, and
sounds stupid on other stuff. Just like the massive gated drum sound
did shortly after.
IIRC the dead drum sound came from trying to get ultimate stereo
separation of the different bits of a 'live' kit?
Stewart Ward
<famu...@pumptech.com.au> writes
>Well I had the 45 rpm single and the only difference I thought that there
>was between the single and album versions was that the 45 was edited. I
>think maybe 8 bars or so from the start of the guitar solo. I have never
>done an A/B comparison so I can't be 100% certain.
I can remember when I was in a covers band in those days, that we could
never decide which version to play. But I have to say the single is
more commercial and tighter playing. There are definately different
'notes' and timings used as well as a different mix and editing. I have
checked the originals before replying. For what it's all worth - are we
a bunch of annoraks or what? ;->
--
Stewart Ward
Award-Session
Tel: +44 1256 477 222
Fax: +44 1256 817 687
Remove XX to reply (or counsel me!)